A (sadly typical) Christian Take on Ardi

From my new favourite site, The Christian Post (emphasis mine):

Following Thursday’s announcement, some critics of evolution theory used the latest buzz to point out that “faith” is required to believe pro-evolution scientists who are themselves unsure about many things and constantly changing what they believe to be true.

Sigh. Unable to understand that science does not stand stagnant like religious dogma, they, in this case, Kirk Cameron’s close personal friend (no, not Jesus) continue:

“’Six months ago, we would have said our common ancestor looked something like a chimp,’” Christian preacher Ray Comfort cited White as having said. “’Now all that has changed.’ Sure has. And it will change again, and again, and again. I know, ‘that’s what real science does.’”

Comfort goes on to refer to the “faith” of “evolutionists”, trying to turn the lack of evidence for their own “theory” into a weakness in “ours”.

Like turds in the punchbowl, so are Creationists in our world.

8 thoughts on “A (sadly typical) Christian Take on Ardi

  1. you couldn’t refute anything that article said…if your going to post this and slap those guys in the face then at least back up your response. bring some solid info to the table and you can join the debate…until then, ssshhhhh


  2. Spoken like a person who has no idea what he is talking about. There is a difference between blind faith and faith based on facts. It does take a lot of blind faith to believe that a 4 million old fossil broken into 36 pieces can tell you anything about evolution. Ardi is a fraud just like Ida and just like Lucy.


  3. Actually, being a geologist, I could refute a shitload of what that article says, but there seems to be relatively little point. I had thought of posting a comment on the CP site, however the main points of the argument from the science/rational side had already been posted and I would add little but noise. I’ve been involved in these discussions for too long to find any amusement in the depth of stupidity of those on the other side.

    There is a fundamental misunderstanding in the creationist crowd as to how science works that makes arguing with them like banging one’s head against a table. In the same way, on the science side of the argument we smash around the word “faith” like it’s a curse, when of course it’s not. And that’s what drove me most about this article.

    The bits that pissed me off most are cited above – that scientists are changing what they “believe” about evolution and that this happens all the time. “Believe” and “faith”, like “theory” in the context of this argument, are loaded words because each has several meanings. Biologists do no change what they “believe” with respect to evolution when new evidence becomes available, they work at trying to fit the evidence into the framework of evolution as they know it. When something is found that doesn’t fit – then we know there is a problem with evolution. They are only married to evolution in so far as it continues to account for the available facts.

    There is nothing here about “belief” in the religious sense of the word, and people that use it in this context are being intentionally misleading.

    If you would like to weigh in on a discussion of creationism v evolution, feel free – I’m in.


  4. Speaking of not knowing what they’re talking about…
    On what do you base your allegation of fraud?

    What is takes to believe that a fossil can tell you about evolution is many, many decades of testing and retesting theories, many discussions among scientists specifically trained to interpret the physical evidence they have discovered, and many instances of trial and error in examining that evidence to arrive at a consensus.

    The nature of scientific ‘belief’ is based on evidence. Consider, as an example, a criminal trial. A defendant stands in the box, accused of murder. He knew the victim, may have had motive, and there is a fairly reliable identification of this person from a witness. Seems straightforward? It is until you uncover new evidence that the accused was in another city at the time, which is verified by video footage and a dozen eyewitnesses.

    Scientists see the world through examination and testing. After a while, test results on available evidence are consistent enough that the community of scientists agree that a particular explanation for what is observed, referred to as a ‘theory’, is accepted. If, however, new information comes to light through scientific exploration that disproves or calls into question the accepted theory, that theory can be re-opened to debate, with the new information included. Scientists are ‘unsure’ because we do not accept anything as final or given until enough evidence is in – notice, I say NOTICE, that evolution is not and has not been called into question – natural selection and the evolution of forms to adapt to environments is still the paradigm. What Ardi represents is more and better information that will help us understand those processes more fully.

    The representation of scientists, evolutionary scientists in particular, as ‘wishy-washy’ or ‘unsure’ is an unfair interpretation of the proper approach to science: an open mind. I have never understood why being open to new ideas is so thrreatening…
    Reverend Comfort is over-simplifying the theory of evolution to the point of absurdity. The argument from the absurd extreme is a cheap rhetorical trick used by those who have nothing but an emotional argument to fall back on. Nothing here needs refuting, he hasn’t stated anything that needs refutation – certainly the scientific theories will change, because they build upon all that came before. That is how it’s supposed to work, and that is its strength. Just because you don’t understand it doesn’t mean it’s not true.

    ‘Our’ side has facts, data and evidence, and a sense of curiosity you obviously lack. ‘Your’ side, lacking anything comparable with which to argue, will resort to thinly veiled insults and emotional responses to ‘make your case’, when in fact you just make fools of yourselves.

    I rest my case.


  5. Once again, Kevvy and I post nearly simultaneously.:)

    Count me in as well – I’m an expert on belief systems, so keep in mind you’ll be arguing with someone who understands hard science (Kevvy) and someone who understands behavioural science. Are you up to it?


  6. Creationism is fundamentalism, and there is no point in arguing with someone who has that much faith! Scientific dialog is important to society and advancing the free will and intellect of humans. Christians can’t say that is bad because 2 pillars of theology is that intellect and free will are part of natural law. How then is there a brick wall put up when we see how earth history and life on earth truly developed? Scientists have always been compassionate people, often with religious beliefs as well. Somehow, this arguing has to stop. God set up the universe in such a way that complex living systems could develop within the framework of HIS laws of thermodynamics. Creationists need to embrace that God created this science we are trying to figure out. It is amazing and beautiful. If you have faith in God then also have faith in the gifts of intelligence you have been given!!! The earth is billions of years old and living systems develop over time. Why does this refute that there is a God? If the bible is to be taken literally, then knowledge itself is a bad apple. Where does that leave humanity?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s